Do we want the state run by class envy? For every Hilton, W. Bush or Al Gore, who's success is quite tied to their forebearers, there's the Apple, Microsoft and Google guys.
As I said, equality requires the lowest common denominator. KG was able to escape the inner city and become a millionaire because of his unholy basketball talent, but some people cannot play basketball, so he would not have had that opportunity in an enforced equality.
I do enough lamententing of our royalty that plays make believe for a living for all of us, but I'd still prefer that they, the people on this forum and everyone have that opportunity to become rich and famous over the prospect of everyone being merely low level equals.
tl;dr - I'm a libertarian.
You're a liberal, like me, based on your answers. Just because the New Dealers stole a word and forced people who believe in freedom to ape an anarchist term doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take it back! Thanks to them "liberalism" means "fascism" and all our political terms have become so peverted W. Bush is apparently a "conservative".
What I actually meant (this may sound a bit dumb) was, if there was a gang fight, and one gang initiated the fight, the opposition "fired back" in "self-defence" and my friends just happened to be there (as bystanders), that would suck. I didn't mean it in the sense that "my friends are the offenders".
If your friends are shot, they were not shot in "self defense", the defending gang (albeit likely criminals) returning fire on the first gang is acting in "self defense." I also think the "self defense" defense, would run into problems here if the gangs had a history of conflict.
We're not taking away the people's ability to self-defend. Fights will still occur, but with bare hands and fists instead (I know, I know, weak point). This should (unless you have a country full of heavyweight fighters) at least decrease the number of deaths per year.
But would people simply not use things beyond their fists? If someone wants to kill someone (capital offense) I assume little things such as weapon-bans would not deter them. People have lamented that the Vtech and Columbine killers didn't follow gun laws. If you're intent on murdering a mass number of people, gun laws are probably the least of your concerns.
If guns/weapons are illegal, only criminals would have guns/weapons. That cannot be disputed.
I am, of course, assuming that the government does have a sense of morality and will not use fear tactics to withhold an entire population and forcefully bend them (the population) to agree to unreasonable terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world
People/weapons v. State/weapons: State weapons. People posseing weapons will lead to some taking advantage of the situation and cause harm.
Again, what is stopping the state then from taking advantage of the situtation? Or armed criminals?
State interests v. Self interests: State interests. Smoking, for example, is not only bad for you but for others, so the state should eliminate it not only to protect the smokers' health, but to protect the second-hand smokers.
Again, what if the state decides video games and fatty foods are bad for everyone? If it's decided that video games make you anti-social and more violent, it's clearly a threat to others that you play video games. If you eat fatty foods and become unhealthy that raises medical costs. If you drink or use drugs, you may become violent, engage in risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Should the state ban these things? Or should they punish you for any crimes you commit that are already on the books and leave these things free?
Unfettered Political Speech v. Managed Political Speech: Unfettered. Freedom of speech will limit corruption.
Eliminate Harmful Speech v. Allow All Speech: Eliminate Harmful Speech
Again, the question here. How can freedom of speech exist if speech is banned? Should there not be freedom of speech even and especially when the speech is "unsightly"?
Rights v. Powers: Rights.
Requirement v. Option: Option. People should not be forced to do certain things.
But don't rights force others to do certain things?
(Let's first get it out of the way that rights are granted by the state and therefore can be taken away by the state, that's not what I'm asking about here.)
If you are given the "right to a job", does that not require and demand of another to give you a job? Taking away their freedom to hire who they choose. The "right to housing" or "right to a minimum wage" places a duty on someone to provide that housing and minimum wage.
The difference between liberalism and anarchism, is of course, there are some rights. The natural rights of life, liberty and property. The first and latter restrict the liberty to kill someone and the liberty to steal. There's a pretty good social pact on these two issues. There are those who want rid of property rights, having either the state own everything or everything being everyones, both of which rational people reject. And of course there are those who aren't down with granting those they don't consider human the right to live. But for the most part we've agreed on these.
The question of course is where do we start drawing more rights (of the social pact, not state, defined kind) and we have some nations today where far too many rights were drawn and the system is collapsing. Everytime we create a right to a job, or a right to health care, it's imposing a burden, a demand, enslaving someone else to deliver on that right.
Because of segregation, there is now a "right to service" in this country. Technically, a business still can deny one service, but they face the prospect of a discrimination lawsuit, or even worse a criminal charge. This "right to service" removes the liberty to enter business with whoever one wishes. Politically, I'm disgusted by this restriction of liberty, even if opposed to the "offense" being committed. (Which would get me called a "racist" by political drive-by shooters...) But we've decided as a society that we cannot trust ourselves to punish businesses socially (by taking our business elsewhere, complaining, etc.) and we need the state to interfere.
Most "civil rights" are the same way. Such as requirements to have facilities for the handicap. This is again taking away liberties for rights. It is requiring a burden. Because of the social stigma attached to it, no one will challenge it and simply go along with an unconstitutional anti-liberty law.
The point of this rambling, is to illustrate how simple "innocent" things can restrict liberties and freedom, that aren't "state opppression" or "dictatorships" or other scary, less common events, but instead situations that convince people emotionally to have their freedoms taken away. Hate speech is another issue where emotions are causing liberties to be destroyed.
Just some things to think about...(Yes, I'm claiming that after rambling off...I really wish I hadn't lost that original post...)
?
.
